UP CM Yogi Adityanath has ordered a vigilance enquiry against senior IAS officer and former Managing Director, UPSIDC,Amit Ghosh
Lucknow, June 3: Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath has ordered a vigilance enquiry against senior IAS officer Amit Ghosh for alleged financial irregularities in awarding tenders, when he was posted as the Managing Director, UPSIDC.
Ghosh was posted as MD, UPSIDC on August 2, 2016 by the then Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav and was transferred by the present government on April 14, 2017. It is over a month and half he is on the waiting list, awaiting any posting. Dr Adarsh Singh, Special Secretary to the Chief Minister, had issued an order on May 29, asking for Vigilance probe into the matter. The Vigilance department has been asked to complete the probe in 15 days. Incidentally, the probe has been ordered on the complaint of Arun Mishra, Chief Engineer in UPSIDC, who is himself facing CBI probe into corruption charges.
A senior official said here today that the Chief Minister was told about the embezzlement of about Rs 1100 crore while awarding tenders in Trans Ganga City and Saraswati Hitech City. ‘The allegations were that Ghosh has done tendering of work of around Rs 1100 crore.
Of this amount, Rs 600 crore tenders were awarded in Trans Ganga city and Saraswati Hi Tech City for Cement Concrete Road,’ he said. The official said prima facie, it seems that the official has flouted all rules and proposed Action Plan for the Financial Year 2016-17. ‘The truth will come out only after the probe,’ he added.
Meanwhile, questioning this Vigilance enquiry, Congress Spokesman Krishna Kant Pandey wondered why the BJP government was acting on the complaint of a corrupt Chief Engineer of UPSIDC, who himself was facing CBI probe in corruption charges. ‘This is amazing that a man who is neck deep in corruption has lodged complaint against his own former MD and the government acted in a jiffy, ordering a CBI probe,’ he said in a statement issued here today.
He said if the MD had earned money through unscrupulous means, action should be taken against him, but it should have been better if the government had acted on a complaint of a person with a clean image. ‘The complaint from a tainted person could be an act of vendetta,’ he added.